Daniel Drezner has excerpted his essay on The Israel Lobby from the Chronicle of Higher Education. The full article is subscriber-only, but the snippets are meaty enough:
There is no doubt that Mearsheimer and Walt have captured a disproportionate meas-ure of criticism because they have targeted a high-profile dimension of American foreign policy. The public reviews of their work have been scathing, and some of them have been unfair. Nevertheless, in terms of methodology, The Israel Lobby has earned much of its criticism. Some of the criticism, however, applies not just to Mearsheimer and Walt, but to the discipline as a whole.
A number of readers have urged me to read the book, either to critique it or to endorse it. Foreign policy is not my area, so it's pretty low down the huge pile of books sitting unread on my shelves. But I have read most of the reviews, and what strikes me is how much of the objection seems to be to the simple fact of acknowledging that there is an Israel lobby.
I was at a conference a few years back, and in the course of a spirited and entirely friendly discussion on differences between European and American foreign policy, someone asked why their Israel policy should be so different. The answer seemed obvious to me, and without thinking particularly hard about it, I said "Europe doesn't have many Jewish people any more." Several people around the table cringed, and so did I as soon as I heard myself.
But it is hardly controversial to state that ethnic groups press the interests of their groups with the government. In no other area of US foreign policy is it controversial simply to say that politicians tend to vote their ethnicity, and more importantly, the ethnicity of their constituents. No Arab-American I have ever met is either surprised or offended when you note that the Michigan delegation in Congress is the only substantial geographical opponent to America's Israel policy; indeed, they wish they had this power in other states. Irish Americans don't accuse you of conspiracy-mongering when you note the way the late Senator Moynihan happily handed out vastly disproportionate numbers of visas to the Irish. I'm not sure why, in a group of people who are presumptively not anti-semitic, it is socially frightening to point out that regions with lots of Arabs and few Jewish people will tend to be more hostile to Israel than regions with lots of Jewish people and few Arabs--particularly when Jewish people are so central to American intellectual, cultural, and economic life. I don't think there's anything wrong with this, though I also don't think that there's any reason your fellow citizens should take particular cognizance of your desires unless you can prove they benefit the nation as a whole.
I do understand why this special taboo exists; no one persecutes Arabs on the grounds that they are running a secret conspiracy to rule the world. To some extent I'm sympathetic to it, much as I understand why research into race and IQ has been left largely to wingnuts with not-so-hidden agendas. But it worries me, because that response seems to have dominated more interesting critiques, such as the one offered by Daniel Drezner:
What [Mearsheimer and Walt] do not do, however, is systematically compare Israel to similarly-situated countries in order to determine if the U.S.-Israeli relationship really is unique. An alternative, strategic explanation for the bilateral relationship would posit that Israel falls into a small set of countries: longstanding allies bordering one or multiple enduring rivals. The category of states that meet this criteria throughout the time period analyzed by Walt and Mearsheimer is relatively small: South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and Pakistan.
Compared to these countries, the U.S. relationship with Israel does not look anomalous. All of these countries have been designated as major non-NATO allies (except for Turkey, a NATO member). Mearsheimer and Walt acknowledge that Turkey receives its aid in a similar manner to Israel; the New York Times recently revealed that Pakistan has received favorable terms as well. In the past decade the United States orchestrated IMF bailouts of South Korea and Turkey that dwarf annual aid flows. Sizable numbers of U.S. troops help to guard the demilitarized zone against North Korea, and the United States Navy takes an active interest in the Taiwan Straits. All four countries have prospered economically in recent years, and they have all frustrated the Bush administration in policy disputes. Despite this, the United States has demonstrated a willingness to expend blood and treasure to provide security for all of these countries – despite the wide variance in the strength of each country’s “lobby” in the United States.
I'm not sure how well this works--we give Israel an awful lot of money, and to some extent it seems to me that the regional rivalries are the product, rather than the cause, of our Israel policy. On the other hand, I'm no expert, and Dan is, so I'm probably wrong. But at any rate, it's a much more provocative thought than most of the writing I read on this book--and that's the bit that got cut out of his essay for lack of space.
If the Jewish lobby were so powerful, we probably wouldn't give so much aid to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Also, I suspect that if we backed off and let the region settle its own issues, there would be no Israel and the Jews would be much fewer in number...
The regional problems date back to the partition of the Ottoman Empire and the UN mandate creating the land of Israel/Palestine.
We spend about 20 billion a year defending South Korea from the North, which is about 5 times as much as we spend on Israel. Does anyone claim our politicians are pawns of Korean Lobbyists? Does anyone accuse them of putting Korean interests ahead of American ones? Or what of the European Americans politicians who spent billions defending our European Nato allies from the Soviets?
Were they too acting as "ethnic lobbyists"? No, we simply have a habit of supporting democratic allies in different parts of the globe, through different arrangements. It's only when it comes to Israel that we hear all of these strange "arguments" about lobby control, etc. So why the double standard"? Could it be the bias that "dare not speak its name"? (anti-semitic bias.....shhhhhh).
no one persecutes Arabs on the grounds that they are running a secret conspiracy to rule the world
Instead we debase ourselves by piddling our panties in fear that the Arabs (and other Muslims) are going to Conquer the World and haul us off to the ovens. The Clash of Civilizations! Eurabia! Islam's Bloody Borders! Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!
Americans used to laugh at the mere concept of "Arab military might." Now we're deathly afraid of them. Go figure.
Earnest Iconoclast wrote:
"If the Jewish lobby were so powerful, we probably wouldn't give so much aid to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan."
That's silly. The fact that the Jewish lobby exerts undue influence on US foreign policy is perfectly reconcilable with the fact that the US gives so much aid to Saudi Arabia.
Anyone who knows anything about the US-Israeli relationship knows that the entire relationship is not reducible to an issue of foreign aid. The entire relationship of the US to the Middle East is shaped by the relationship with Israel.
As for the South Korea and Taiwan analogy, it is inadequate. South Korea does not occupy the land of another nation or people, nor do South Korea's policies create nearly as much instability in the region as Israel's.
Also, Jewish support for Israel isn't entirely analogous other ethnic groups support for the land of their ancestors. US policy toward Israel is not shaped by the majority of domestic Jewish voters (it once was). Rather, a small minority of right-wing Jews who, incidentally hate Arabs, exert undue influence on US policy and American public discourse. Most Jews do not follow the neocon/Commentary line.
As for the South Korea and Taiwan analogy, it is inadequate. South Korea does not occupy the land of another nation or people, nor do South Korea's policies create nearly as much instability in the region as Israel's.
OK, you make a case that it's inadequate in the case of South Korea, but you are omitting Taiwan here, I notice. One could easily make a case that the existence of Taiwan creates "nearly as much instability" in the region as Israel. (Of course, in the case of Taiwan, to the extent the the government was occupying the land of another people, until the 80s and 90s it was the KMT and mainlanders dominating those who had lived on the island longer.)
US policy toward Israel is not shaped by the majority of domestic Jewish voters (it once was). Rather, a small minority of right-wing Jews who, incidentally hate Arabs, exert undue influence on US policy and American public discourse
Who "incidentally hate Arabs," yet are far more confident in the ability of Arab states to democratize than Israelis and perhaps American Jews as a whole. Strange. You're quite right that the neocon view does match up with the view of Israelis themselves (outside of the marginalized Sharansky.) However, one of the biggest differences is in the neocon faith that the US could bring about democratization, while most Israelis (and certainly the power structure in the country, both Avoda and Likud in addition to Olmert) believe that they're much better off with relatively friendly dictators controlling the terrorist groups. In this, the typical Israeli view is closer to that of realists like Walt and Mearscheimer.
John Thacker-
I don't know if you've been watching, but the neocon belief that Arabs--and anyone else--can easily be democratized is a belief used to justify the use of force. The neocons do not say that Arabs can democratize through institutions and civil society--they say it can be accomplished through war.
I said "Europe doesn't have many Jewish people any more."
France has a large Jewish population, and a foreign policy that tilts distinctly anti-Israel. Germany has virtually no Jewish population, and a foreign policy that remains scrupulously neutral in the conflict.
I think the historical roots of European diplomatic positions on the Arab-Israeli conflict are more complex than the demographic political argument makes out.
That said, another way of looking at the issue would be in terms of the greater ideological power of the American Jewish community, which actually is partly due to the nature of immigrant communities, rather than setted minority communities. Jews haven't gained influence in the US foreign policy community via regional voting blocs so much as via their high levels of participation in the national political infrastructure. In countries like France, where Jewish communities are more settled traditional regional political entities with a defined character, there's less national influence and less influence on foreign policy. American Jews are influential not mainly because of the power of the Jewish vote in Manhattan and Brooklyn; they're influential because of the power of a large network of Jewish fundraising organizations and political pressure groups.
South Korea isn't creating any "instability" because the Dictator next door (Kim Jong Ill) sees our soldiers on his border and keeps his distance. Otherwise, North Korea would invade just as they did in the 50s.
Israel creates no more "instability" than Korea. The only difference is the local Arab dictators still feel they can eradicate Israel through terror and propaganda, and thus they create the instability. Its important to keep in mind that the Arab World's desire to destroy Israel existed long before Israel ever set foot in the "Occupied Territories". And it is that rejectionist mindset which has been the true source of the conflict ever since.
This discussion is virtually fact and expertise free:
The US gives virtually *no* foreign aid to Saudi Arabia. They were going to get $25k, but even that pittance was struck from an omnibus foreign aid bill:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-07/16/content_349153.htm
Saudi Arabia is constantly pressured to buy overpriced US military goods, provide basing rights, and deliver a large annual dose of coporate welfare to connected US firms. Eqypt DOES get a huge aid alottment, but nobody can claim it is the result of the Eqypt lobby (unless you're REALLY uninformed).
In the US, there simply is no politically connected group with a passionate attachment to a foreign country steering aid, trade agreements, and yes, military expeditions, toward foreign country goals. Mexican immigrants could give a damn about US-Mexico policy, and name one Taiwanese American in a position of power in the Bush Administration.
The bottom line reasons we have an Israel lobby determined Middle East policy are:
1. The amount of right wing Israel lobby money in PACs, donations to candidates, and DLC GOP may be up to 50% of the total (according to some estimates). That's not even mentioning the financing of "think tanks" like the Brookings Saban Center and Winep that draft policy.
2. The lobby has positioned itself as both the "driver" and aribtrar of military contracts and energy policy in the Middle East. Look at how Richard Perle tried to use missile defense pork to get support in Congress for moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (the 'Clean Break' plan). That's the essence of Israel lobby brokering.
3. The US nolonger enforces the Logan Act, Espionage Act, Foreign Agents Registration Act, or Election Laws applicable to coordinated Israel lobbying at the PAC level because the lobby is now esconced in the Judiciary, key DOJ offices, the Cabinet, State Department, DoD, and strategic positions in other key agencies. DOJ will occaisionally apply FARA to kick around Venezuela or more recenty, beat up on China (perhaps justifiable). Never against an "ally" though the law says nothing about which countries should be given a "pass". (For Israel and Turkey, look up Sibel Edmond's charges and why President Bush is moving to retroactively make Israel lobby nuclear trafficking immune).
In fact, focusing on the Israel lobby as an "outsider" as Walt and Mearsheimer do is now a waste of time. If you really want to see how it all works, look at Israel lobby operatives at the opaque US Treasury like Stuart Levey and Michael Jacobson. From their seats, the lobby driven US war on Iran has already been launched, courtesy of AIPAC and Winep and their legion of financial backers.
"Europe doesn't have many Jewish people any more."
What fraction of the population is Jewish in eg America, Britain, France, Italy etc?
I think the most obvious difference between America and, for example, Britain, is that America is much bigger, and can therefore afford to stick its neck further out.
There is a long tradition of anti-Semitism in Europe, obviously well discussed elsewhere. Americans tend to be more assertive, independent and accepting of Jews. I guess it's useful that you have hypothesized present day Europe to be normative; that can get us to an advanced stage of discussion rather quickly, e.g. we can analyze the deficiencies in our farm policy vis'-a-vis' the French. "Regional rivalries are the product, rather than the cause, of our Israel policy." We have the example of VN; once we quit supporting the South, the North invaded in blitzkrieg strength which reduced 'regional rivalry' somewhat. With Obama's Brezhinski in Damascus to seek the wisdom of President Assad, we just may not have the problem of Israel too much longer.
"Rather, a small minority of right-wing Jews who, incidentally hate Arabs, exert undue influence on US policy and American public discourse."
How do they exert such undue influence? They don't seem to control many voters, and all the cognoscenti, such as yourself, are on to them.
"There is a long tradition of anti-Semitism in Europe, obviously well discussed elsewhere."
One point worth mentioning here is that this history is partly responsible for Europe's anti-Israel bias. Mark Steyn touched on this a few years ago:
Ralph Peters made a similar point six years ago about Europe's anti-Semitism and its anti-Israel bias:
Evidence that the Israeli lobby is enormously powerful is overwhelming. For example, presidential candidates consider it a necessity to address AIPAC and to be seen as a friend of Israel. On his website, Mike Huckabee goes so far as to declare that he is a "steadfast supporter of Israel."
American support for Taiwan is in no way comparable to American support for Israel. Taiwan's interests in stopping the advance of communism have coincided with those of the United States, so American leaders have considered it a worthwhile investment to stand by Taiwan. American and Israeli interests diverge. As the only remaining fascist empire left in the world, where those of Jewish ethnic stock enjoy citizenship status while those of Arab ethnic stock in the occupied territories are deprived of all rights, the current manifestation of Israel has rightfully infuriated the Arabs.
The sight of this injustice is a huge factor why Arab political culture continues to not look upon liberal democratic values as something to aspire to: some Arabs have concluded that the West is hypocritical and not worth listening to in any matter, and other Arabs have skilfully exploited the Israeli situation to provide a safe harbor for their theocratic or nationalistic views. Had the United States dealt fairly with the Arabs since World War II, there is a good chance that Arab political culture would have changed by now, similarly to how the political culture within the Soviet Union changed and ultimately resulted in the collapse of communism.
But if you still don't believe that the Israeli lobby is too powerful, conduct this experiment. Declare to a random group of American that you believe the Israel lobby to be too powerful and note the reactions. Then perform the same experiment, except declare the Taiwan
To some extent I'm sympathetic to it, much as I understand why research into race and IQ has been left largely to wingnuts with not-so-hidden agendas.
Versus social research resting on assumptions of race and IQ idealism, left largely to moonbats with equally clear agendas.
France has a large Jewish population, and a foreign policy that tilts distinctly anti-Israel. Germany has virtually no Jewish population, and a foreign policy that remains scrupulously neutral in the conflict.
France has a far larger Muslim population than it does a Jewish population. It also has a far more leftist tilt than does the United States.
Our interest in South Korea and Taiwan originated during the Cold War and efforts to contain Soviet and Chinese Communism -- both perceived as threats to the United States itself. Our support for those two nations has never required much pressure from the Korean- or Taiwanese-American lobbies. Our support of Israel, on the other hand, has had little to do with hampering America's major rivals.
This actually doesn't seem to line up very well with the chronology. Remember, the US wasn't much of an Israel booster early in that country's life as a modern nation. We quite purposefully failed to support it in 1956, and didn't come around to it until the war in 1967-- after it had developed the bomb.
Also, your analysis, that the Israel lobby is due largely to the Jewish population in the US, doesn't seem to align with modern politics in the US either. It is the Republican party which is most reliably pro-Israel, while American Jews are over overwhelmingly Dems. I can't speak with any authority on the "Israel Lobby", nor the American foreign policy community, but the grass-roots support for Israel in the US comes almost entirely from Evangelical Christians. I'm not too certain the reasons for this, the Cold War plays a factor, as does Christian affinity for the Jewish faith over Islam. But, that is the most important factor for the strength of the "Israel Lobby" in the United States.
There is a long tradition of anti-Semitism in Europe, obviously well discussed elsewhere. Americans tend to be more assertive, independent and accepting of Jews.
Chauvinism is ugly and dangerous wherever it appears. The above statement is an expression of American national chauvinism. Israel's oppressive policies towards Palestinians are rooted in Israeli national chauvinism and Jewish ethnic chauvinism. Palestinian terrorism is rooted increasingly, and worrisomely, in Muslim religious chauvinism. No good comes from perpetuating these "my group is better than your group" themes in any discussions of the Israel-Palestine problem.
Alinsky’s 13th rule for radicals
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
Saul Alinsky taught his eager disciples that the establishment despised conflict. He blamed this perverse malady upon the dual forces of organized religion ( those turn-the-other-cheek folks) and the Madison Avenue advertising culture, which he said “emphasizes getting along with people and avoiding friction.” Alinsky deemed avoidance of conflict as not only disgusting, but contrary to the betterment of a “free and open society.”
A+ booksfoe on your radical effort regardless of the lack of chauvinism in my comment.
"Evidence that the Israeli lobby is enormously powerful is overwhelming [...] On his website, Mike Huckabee goes so far as to declare that he is a "steadfast supporter of Israel."
How many Jews do you think are voting for Mike Huckabee? His declaration of support for Israel is aimed at Evangelical Christians, not Jews.
"France has a far larger Muslim population than it does a Jewish population. It also has a far more leftist tilt than does the United States."
It also has a Jewish foreign minister, and a part-Jewish President. It was also Israel's biggest ally and patron up until the mid-1960's, when that role was replaced by the U.S. France's foreign policy, from then up until the election of Sarkozy, has been driven not by its Muslim or Jewish population, but by the desire to tweak the U.S.
"Our interest in South Korea and Taiwan originated during the Cold War and efforts to contain Soviet and Chinese Communism"
So did our support for Israel. When we became Israel's main arms supplier, in the mid-60's, Israel's Arab enemies were being armed, supplied, and advised by the Soviets. Even the Palestinian cause was aligned with the Soviets. Arafat, after all, was a leftist, not an Islamist. Same with the PLO, the PFLP, etc.
Remember, too, that we are bound by treaty to go to war with Russia, if necessary, to defend Estonia (and other new Nato members). We are similarly bound to go to war with China, if necessary, to defend Taiwan. We have no similar obligation to defend Israel against anyone.
"I'm not sure how well this works--we give Israel an awful lot of money, and to some extent it seems to me that the regional rivalries are the product, rather than the cause, of our Israel policy."
I'll second Mike on this. The idea that U.S. support of Israel is what causes them to have enemies is a completely untenable hypothesis, given the actual history of the region.
To add to Mike's analysis of grass-roots support, it is also a fact that Israel is the only country in the world which the majority of Americans view favorably. While support is strongest on the conservative Right, it is also pretty strong on the liberal Left. Of course, I have no idea whether governmental support drives grass-roots support or vice versa.
It seems to me that Congress is made up largely of the types of white people who look to certain organizations to speak for specific groups: the NAACP to speak for African-Americans, the AARP to speak for the elderly and AIPAC to speak for American Jews. AIPAC is rather important for helping to organize political donations. After all, a poll of members of Congress put AIPAC as the second most powerful lobbying group after the AARP. However, since Congressional members somehow mistake AIPAC's "Israel right or wrong" line as the de facto Jewish-American line, they don't really challenge it, especially considering AIPAC's main mode of attack is to declare any criticism of Israel (including arguments that are popular in Israel) as anti-Semitic.
Individual Jewish-Americans, like members of all ethnic groups, tend to vote on a wide variety of issues. However, there are a vocal minority that is highly politically active and only votes on supporting the AIPAC line, just as there are some powerful Florida Cubans in the US who vote only on keeping the embargo on Cuba, some rich OC Iranians who vote only on maintaining a belligerent stance against the government in Tehran made up of the people who overthrew their families, etc. In addition, AIPAC is very good at organizing anti-Semitic Christian millenialist support for Israel. After all, they have had guys who want Israel to be nuked to bring about the Second Coming speak at their conferences and called them "friends of Israel." Think of all of the crazy Christianist Republicans in Congress that just seem to scream "anti-Semite" and practically call Democrats "bleeding-heart liberal Jews" that are ardent Israel supporters and hate the Palestinians.
Our stances in South Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia are based on some idea of the national interest: checking Kim Jong Il, checking Mao (and now preserving democracy) and maintaining the flow of oil. In fact, South Koreans are the second-most anti-American people (according to polls I've seen) in the non-Muslim world behind Argentineans. Our presence in downtown Seoul is unpopular (in part because on average an American soldier is accused of rape in Korea or Japan every three weeks), as were our policies during and after the East Asian Crisis (Lawrence's and Greenspan's desire to break up the chaebols, etc.). The troops involved in the Kwangju Massacre that killed hundreds of innocent students were only allowed to act militarily with American approval, which many Koreans believes implicates Americans in that massacre. In Taiwan, we were supporting before the late 1980's something similar to apartheid. Our support for Israel post-1967 had part a moral component (after all, at that point the right was weak in Israel, the occupation hadn't yet become a planned policy and Asaad and Nasser were Moscow-leaning threats to a democracy). Before then, France had been Israel's main ally. However, since then Israel has made the Occupation an official policy (despite the fact that 2/3 Israelis think the settlers are not loyal to Israel but instead to scripture and they are probably right), allied itself with apartheid-era South Africa and been unable to be of much help in the region, such as not being able to help us out in Gulf War I.
There is no real compelling national interest reason for the type of support we have for Israel these days. (It also doesn't help that the Israeli leader that probably most wanted to do the right thing was assassinated.) However, Walt and Mearsheimer, in their weirdness, show that you should never send an out-of-touch realist to do a liberal's job.
"Our stances in South Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia are based on some idea of the national interest: checking Kim Jong Il, checking Mao (and now preserving democracy) and maintaining the flow of oil"
That should have read:
"Our stances in South Korea, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia have been based on some idea of the national interest: checking Kim Il Sung, checking Mao (and now preserving democracy) and maintaining the flow of oil."
This discussion forgets an important point. Israel has nuclear weapons, as it was given the technology by France.
If the Israeli government ever decided it faced a choice between using nukes and Israel being completely wiped out, it would use nukes (as indeed would any other nuclear-armed country, I do not intend to claim that the French or the Americans or the Chinese are more committed pacifists than the Israelis).
To the extent that the US has an interest in the Middle East not being a nuclear wasteland, it has an interest in supporting Israel so Israel never has to make that decision.
If anyone wants the US government to stop supporting Israel they need to find a way of persuading the security policy-makers that lack of support won't resort in a nuclear war in the Middle East, or that if there is a nuclear war it won't significantly harm American interests.
I don't know if you've been watching, but the neocon belief that Arabs--and anyone else--can easily be democratized is a belief used to justify the use of force. The neocons do not say that Arabs can democratize through institutions and civil society--they say it can be accomplished through war.
rickm:
Actually, I have been watching, and the neocons claim that Arabs can democratize through institutions and civil society as well as war. In any case, that would hardly justify your original claim that they hate Arabs. One might as well say (and people have, regrettably) that Walt and Mearscheimer and other realists "hate Arabs" because they support dictatorships that they think are better than what would happen if democracy were not only forced through war, but also if Egypt et al. full legalized groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. (In addition to the various castigation of the Bush Administration for insisting on Palestinian elections, and then for refusing to send aid to Hamas-- as though foreign policy must be independent of whatever party wins an election in a foreign country.)
The belief that trade can cause a slow reform in civil society, and that we're better off waiting is a respectable one that is certainly true in some cases, but it has likewise been attacked for ignoring the plight of the oppressed, and called merely cover for one's indifference and hate. This is true of nearly all foreign policy tactics-- almost all have been called immoral or cover for immoral beliefs. This is particularly noticeable considering the wide range in schools in US foreign policy, and since the USA engages in nearly every possible foreign policy alternative if you look at the globe as a whole. And yet no matter what option one takes, someone is there to assail putative underlying morals.
At least today I hope most of us can take shelter in that Pakistan's elections seem not to have been rigged, and that the MMA lost big in the NWFP as well.
Hmm, Reality Man, I'm not seeing how Taiwan and Israel are that different. Mao isn't alive now. Preserving democracy? Surely you've noticed that only Israel, Lebanon, and now possibly Iraq could be called democratic in the Middle East, and, glory be, our current foreign policy supports the democratically elected government of all three. (The Palestinian Authority could also be added as possibly, and it was US foreign policy to support an election even when it would bring Hamas to power. Iran is also closer to democracy than the rest, even with the Guardian Council disqualifying anyone who isn't acceptable enough to the Ayatollahs.) Why, you say that Taiwan's democracy has a non-democratic enemy in the PRC? Surely Israel has non-democratic enemies who have vowed to destroy it.
Obviously China is much bigger than Taiwan, so someone could easily wonder why it's in our "national interest" to ally with the small wealthy democracy instead of the larger country that seems to have some home of reforming and democratizing fully through more enlightened leadership and civil society. It's a big market, you know.
(And North Korea and Kim Jong Il? Surely the ROK, Japan, and even the PRC have interest in containing him and the money and ability to do so if they wished.)
Reality Man, I think it's far too much to assume that US presence in Taiwan serves "national interest" in a way that allying with Israel does not, and that the situations are so different.
In Taiwan, we were supporting before the late 1980's something similar to apartheid.
We were supporting a fairly nasty in its own way military government that was dominated by mainlanders and KMT followers rather than the people who had been living there for years. However, surely "something similar to apartheid" is a stretch, unless you're willing to call that '60s Israel where the right was weak "something similar to apartheid" as well. After all, you should know that much of Likud's strength has always been, especially early on, among poorer Sephardim who feel that Avoda discriminates against them in favor of Ashkenazi. One can note that the Jews who fled from Africa and other Middle Eastern countries to Israel after its establishment were mostly Sephardim, unlike the more educated Ashkenazi who came from Europe.
Mike wrote:
"Remember, the US wasn't much of an Israel booster early in that country's life as a modern nation. We quite purposefully failed to support it in 1956, and didn't come around to it until the war in 1967-- after it had developed the bomb."
Juan wrote:
"When we became Israel's main arms supplier, in the mid-60's,"
You two should learn your history. The US began viewing Israel as a strategic asset in the Middle East during the second Eisenhower administration, roughly around 1957. This set the stage for Kennedy's sale of arms to Israel, if I recall correctly, in 1962. Not to mention that immediately before Israel declared independence, the Israeli government called Truman to give him advance notice. The special relationship was born in tandem with Israel.
"Not to mention that immediately before Israel declared independence, the Israeli government called Truman to give him advance notice. The special relationship was born in tandem with Israel."
Eh. Truman was on the fence about recognizing Israel -- his Secretary of State, George Marshall, was against it. In the end he recognized Israel and then did less than Czechoslovakia to help it after it immediately got invaded by every neighboring Arab country. So much for the "special relationship" starting then.
Juan-
Any ambivalence that Truman had about recognizing Israel was not personal--it was political. There were numerous factors that gave him pause--notably, the state department. Truman himself was not 'on the fence' about recognition.
I'd say there are many reasons why Europe is less supportive of Israel than the US (but still supportive enough to, say, boycot a democratically elected Palestinian government at Israel's bidding, so let's not exaggerate). One - sorry, Americans - is that the average European is just a teeny bit less ignorant of foreign affairs, and more likely to know that Palestinian civilians suffer far more from the conflict than Israeli civilians. The second is that Europeans are less often religious, and even those who are religious have little mystical attachment to the Holy Land (European Christianity being more New Testament than Old Testament, and more lithurgical than political).
One phrase in this article stunned me, though: "no one persecutes Arabs on the grounds that they are running a secret conspiracy to rule the world". But isn't that precisely what those who speak of "Islamofascism" are accusing Arabs of - and aren't some of those people either active in the Bush Administration or otherwise in positions of influence? It would seem to me that if there is one ethnic group being persecuted today "on the grounds that they are running a secret conspiracy to rule the world", it is precisely the Arabs.
Yes, Hans, Europeans are much more intelligent and sophisticated about politics than Americans. That's why so many of you variously embraced Nazism and Communism while we Americans muddled along without either.
Question for you though: If you are anti-Israel because, as you say, the Palestinians are suffering more from the conflict, are you also anti-NATO, because, clearly the Taliban fighters are suffering more than them from the war in Afghanistan?
I nominate Harry's last post for the stupidest comment evah.
Nice try Hans. In fact Europeans are more anti-Israel because the have a long history of anti-semitism engrained in their culture. It started with Christian states which excluded non-Christians (like Jews)and gradually racheted up to attempted genocide.
Fortunately, America's Founding Fathers deliberately left behind the petty religious bigotries and "group think" of Europe and established a country based on individualism. As a result, we're less boxed in by the baggage of anti-semitic prejudice and are more apt to think for ourselves. And frankly, this explains our support for Israel, as compared to Europe's lack of.
Hans,
Support the following claim:
One phrase in this article stunned me, though: "no one persecutes Arabs on the grounds that they are running a secret conspiracy to rule the world". But isn't that precisely what those who speak of "Islamofascism" are accusing Arabs of - and aren't some of those people either active in the Bush Administration or otherwise in positions of influence? It would seem to me that if there is one ethnic group being persecuted today "on the grounds that they are running a secret conspiracy to rule the world", it is precisely the Arabs.
In which, concrete, ways are Arabs, as a group, being persecuted and accused of secretly conspiring to rule the world?
As far as Palestinians suffering more than Israelis, that's what happens when you lose the conflict. The problem is that the Palestinians won't acknowledge that they've lost. If you get the crap beaten out of you (1967 conflict) and you keep coming back for more, why should anyone have sympathy for you?
Yes, it is tragic that Palestinians are suffering. But that suffering is caused by those who will not allow them to emigrate to other countries and continues to indoctrinate them on a fantasy of defeating Israel.
Half Canadian,
If in your view it is acceptable for the Palestinians to suffer because they "lost the conflict," (actually they didn't, the Arab armies of neighboring states did), then I am sure you will have no problem with leaving the question of morality out of any discussion of the Holocaust, and stating that it is acceptable for Jews, who lost the conflict, to have suffered.
Jeff Goldman,
The Jews of Europe didn't launch a war against Germany in an attempt to drive the Germans into the sea. Millions of Jews were murdered while the world did nothing. The Palestinians, and their pan-Arab brothers, did launch a war to drive the Jews -- many of them, refugees from the German Holocaust -- into the sea. This after the Arabs rejected a UN compromise that the Jews had accepted. The suffering of the Palestinians (such as it is) is largely the result of their poor treatment at the hands of their fellow Arabs, who have kept them in refugee camps as second class citizens for generations.
A similar number of Middle Eastern Jews were displaced after the establishment of the state of Israel -- all were welcomed and assimilated into Israeli society. They don't commit terrorist acts against the Arab countries that evicted them from the homes their people lived in for centuries, and no one in Europe or America bemoans their eviction. On the other hand, the UN has set up an entire refugee bureaucracy to minister to the Palestinian 'refugees' (I use quotes because this is the only time in modern history that the grandchildren of refugees have been considered refugees themselves). There is one UN refugee agency for the Palestinians, and one for the rest of the world. More UN personnel and resources are spent on the Palestinians than on all of sub-Saharan Africa.
As for the living conditions of Palestinians in Israeli-controlled territories, prior to the Palestinian terrorist uprising, these living conditions were better than in most Arab countries. There were more universities, Palestinians tended to be better educated, etc. The hardships that exist today -- checkpoints and such -- are purely a response to Palestinian terrorism. The Palestinians have themselves to blame for this.
That palestinian civilians are suffering more than Israeli civilians doesn't mean the palestinian point of view in the conflict is right, nor does it make the actions of hamas/fatah any less odious. Chechen civilians are suffering more than russian ones, that doesn't mean the late Shamil basayev was anything less than a terrorist pyschopath. The same is true for Zahar and Mashal.
Hans,
your post makes clear for all Americans the bias that Europeans have against Israel and Jews to be more precise. The Palestinians immediately turned down partition, their proxies attacked Israel, and they have repeatedly denied the right of Israel to exist. Even Fatah said it will recognize Israel but not as a Jewish state. This is de facto non-recognition for their moderate party that liberals are so eager to embrace.
Then your excuse is that Europeans are so much more knowledgeable about who's suffering more. Knowledge requires more than information about casualty figures. It requires some understanding of morality and some understanding of who is trying to negotiate and who is supporting organizations with explicitly racist charters.
And Jeff Goldman, your comparison of the Holocaust to the suffering of the Palestinians is a despicable libel. The Jews were betrayed by their own countrymen and liquidated in industrialized fashion. They were NOT launching rockets into civilian areas and spreading anti-German propaganda among the populus.
Samson,
Half Canadian was analyzing the situation of the Palestinians without bringing any moral considerations into the matter; I suggested that we do the same with regards the Holocaust. In my short post, I did not even attempt to actually draw any moral conclusions, I was merely pointing out the double standards that the Jewish lobby applies in judging the historical suffering of the Jews versus the historical suffering of other peoples.
Your posting suggests that you may not even know the meaning of libel: defamation of a person in writing. I don’t believe that drawing broad political or historical analogies could ever be accurately described as libel.
As the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe and others have documented, the Palestinian people had to endure a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing during the founding of the state of Israel. While some Palestinians did receive some monetary compensation for their land, those transactions clearly must be viewed as being done under duress. There is no indication that before the undertaking of this gross injustice anybody in Palestine even thought about committing terrorist acts. There is some evidence that the Palestinians actually learned the value of indiscriminate, random violence from the tactics that the Jews used to drive the British from Palestine.
Whatever injustice the Jews may have suffered at the hands of others has absolutely no relevance to how we should judge the suffering of the Palestinians. If you believe that the it was acceptable to drive the Palestinians from their homes because of Jewish suffering elsewhere, then you must find it morally justifiable for a Tutsi family who had to flee the genocide at the hands of the Tutus to move into your home in the United States.
Samson, are you willing to disclose whether or not you consider yourself to be Jewish? I suspect that you do and that you are emotionally involved in any issue that involves the Jews. You must admit that being emotionally involved in political issues clouds one judgment. For example, if a commission were to be set up to provide guidance on the resolution of the Greek-Turkish conflict, we would want to have knowledgeable, intelligent, but disinterested individuals serving on that commission. As a Jew, you are clearly unable to be a disinterested arbitrator on the perceived injustices of history and the heated conflicts of today. As such, why do you post on issues involving the Jews?
Jeff Goldman,
Your last post contained scarcely an honest statement. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, libel is a written defamatory statement that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression. According to your very narrow definition of libel, the blood libel would not qualify as a libel at all.
Your middle paragraphs are just an attempt to justify an analogy that is racist at its core. I sincerely hope that this isn't met with a very narrow definition of racist that through a loophole, excludes your analogy. The Palestinians rejected a settlement that would have given them gaza, the west bank, and the northern galilee. As I said, war was waged on their behalf. That they have "lost" because of their own intransigence is undeniable. Yet, you want to equate this with the Jewish population in Germany who weren't presented with choices other than perhaps which gas chamber. You sir, are the one who chose to invoke the history of the Jews and sully it, NOT ME.
Now to your ending salvo that you use as an attempt to extract personal information from me when you're using a Jewish pseudonym yourself. I'm using the name Samson to indicate that I'm Jewish. I could have done what you did and chose Adolf Hitler or something to give the appearance that I'm an antisemite defending Jews since you claim to be a Jew (nice trick). You could be Jewish, but without your pre-emption I wouldn't have tried to extract this bit of personal information from you, sir Torquemada.
Not having to live under a military occupation is not something that the peoples of the planet are supposed to have to negotiate for. There is no excuse why the Palestinian people have had to live under an oppressive military occupation for over 40 years. Under such circumstances, the Palestinians have every right to resort to armed resistance, and certainly no Jewish person in the occupied territories can be considered to be a civilian.
I had a strong suspicion that you are a Jew because you are blinded by unseemly Jewish nationalism. Assuming that your life circumstances are similar to those of most American Jews, you are among some of the most privileged people on Earth, both politically and economically. Yet instead of using your collective influence to apply universal humanistic values to conflicts, you pursue your narrow ethnicity-driven interests, irrespective of the damage done to innocent bystanders such as the Palestinians. The Jews decided that they want the land that the Palestinians were living on, so they simply moved in and stole the land through the use of treachery, force, and media manipulation.
Wouldn't it make sense for you to hone your skills in thinking clearly about conflicts by opining on the Greek-Turkish conflict or the Kikuyu-Luo conflict?
You're asking me to apply universal standards to the talkback points of an article about the Israel lobby? You don't see how absurd that is. This would be akin to me applying a litmus test whereby I determine if someone is antisemitic by asking them about every global conflict involving a greater number of casualties than the Israel-Palestine conflict. There would scarcely be an individual who wouldn't register as an antisemite because to my chagrin it gets a disproportionate amount of attention. And I'm supposed to feel guilty about my interest in Jewish issues because I'm among "some of the most privileged people on Earth." Very generous of you to say, but privilege is bestowed and I've worked for what I have.
I never made any excuses for the occupation, which as you say, has lasted for 40 years. I do take exception to this nebulous concept of a Zionist lobby, who are a bunch of groups who are so diffuse that they can scarcely be categorized, yet communicating well enough to subvert our national interest. I think it smacks of classic antisemitism. I also think the way you address me, demanding to know whether I'm a Jew, and telling me what my additional responsibilities are as a Jew, is all too familiar. Why do you think it's acceptable to say these things to Jews when you would be reprimanded and made a pariah for making the same demands of anyone else?
And I won't compare my life's worth of charity work, or my interest in other political issues because I did these things out of kindness and not guilt. But since I told you I'm a Jew and am proud of it, you should at least tell everyone why you post under the surname Goldman.
This blog entry does not even show up on the first page anymore, so I don't want to spend a lot of effort posting here, but here is my brief respone.
The name Goldman is a leftover from a name I picked when I was responding to someone named Silver-something on The Jerusalem Post.
Samson, it is time for you to stop attaching any significance to the fact that you may be ethnically Jewish, and time to become just an American. You are fully emancipated. What would have happened to this country if all ethnicities behaved this way? You surely must admit that the Polish people have suffered a lot of injustice over the centuries, and yet Polish people in the United States do not want to relive the grudges of the past and do not lobby the U.S. government to pursue a foreign policy rooted in Polish nationalism. It is time for the Jews to do the same: forget about being Jewish and assimilate. The sooner that happens the better. I am doing my part to make sure that my children will not consider themselves Jewish.
Jeff,
You sound like a nice guy. I understand well the need for all people to assimilate. As a Jew, I see it as important to be a loyal American, but also maintain an interest in Jewish issues. I see no contradiction.
The Russian masses questioned the loyalty of the Jews, as did the Germans, but it doesn't make them right. We've brought many great contributions to this country and I think it's a type of scapegoating to blame Zionism for the failed foray into Iraq. The blame lies with the Bush presidency, his cabinet, and his Jewish and non-Jewish cronies.
It's a little bit much to protect your children from being identifying as Jewish. Protect them from antisemitism, but don't run from it by denying their heritage.